Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves functional outcomes, complications, and revisions

Bensa, Alessandro; Sangiorgio, Alessandro; Deabate, Luca; Illuminati, Andrea; Pompa, Benedetta; Filardo, Giuseppe

doi:10.1302/2633-1462.55.bjo-2024-0030.r1

Back

Bensa_2024_BJO_2633-1462.55.BJO-2024-0030.R1

Journal article

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves functional outcomes, complications, and revisions

Bensa, Alessandro ORCID Service of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland - Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland
Sangiorgio, Alessandro Service of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland
Deabate, Luca Service of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland
Illuminati, Andrea IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
Pompa, Benedetta Service of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland
Filardo, Giuseppe ORCID Service of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Department of Surgery, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland - Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Switzerland

2024

Published in:

Bone & Joint Open. - 2024, vol. 5, p. 374-384

English Aims - Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions. Methods - The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 20 February 2024 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were comparative studies, written in the English language, with no time limitations, on the comparison of R-UKA and C-UKA. The quality of each article was assessed using the Downs and Black Checklist for Measuring Quality. Results - Among the 3,669 articles retrieved, 21 studies on 19 series of patients were included. A total of 3,074 patients (59.5% female and 40.5% male; mean age 65.2 years (SD 3.9); mean BMI 27.4 kg/m2 (SD 2.2)) were analyzed. R-UKA obtained a superior Knee Society Score improvement compared to C-UKA (mean difference (MD) 4.9; p < 0.001) and better Forgotten Joint Score postoperative values (MD 5.5; p = 0.032). The analysis of radiological outcomes did not find a statistically significant difference between the two approaches. R-UKA showed longer operating time (MD 15.6; p < 0.001), but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA (5.2% vs 10.1% and 4.1% vs 7.2%, respectively). Conclusion - This meta-analysis showed that the robotic approach for UKA provided a significant improvement in functional outcomes compared to the conventional manual technique. R-UKA showed similar radiological results and longer operating time, but reduced complication and revision rates compared to C-UKA. Overall, R-UKA seems to provide relevant benefits over C-UKA in the management of patients undergoing UKA.

Collections